"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...


All antennas are grounded and you should be able to weigh the Earth
because it gain and lose mass as they transmit and receive electrons"
S*
It is incorrect to say that all aerials are grounded. Dipoles, quads and
yagis aren't grounded.

On 5/29/2012 5:32 PM, Ian wrote:
"Szczepan wrote in message
...


All antennas are grounded and you should be able to weigh the Earth
because it gain and lose mass as they transmit and receive electrons"
S*
It is incorrect to say that all aerials are grounded. Dipoles, quads and
yagis aren't grounded.



And neither are spacecraft antennas no matter what the type.

tom
K0TAR

"tom" napisal w wiadomosci
. net...
On 5/29/2012 5:32 PM, Ian wrote:
"Szczepan wrote in message
...


All antennas are grounded and you should be able to weigh the Earth
because it gain and lose mass as they transmit and receive electrons"
S*
It is incorrect to say that all aerials are grounded. Dipoles, quads and
yagis aren't grounded.



And neither are spacecraft antennas no matter what the type.

The Earth is in space and the spacecraft also.
The same is with aircrafts and autos.

All transmitters and receivers are connected with the mass.
S*

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

All transmitters and receivers are connected with the mass.
S*


Mine aren't.

The way you talk about radio reminds me of a friend who used crystal sets
back in the 1920s. Fortunately, hew was able to learn modern radio theory
and practise.

I've a recollection that you've posted your views onto this newsgroup a few
weeks ago.
I guess that asking you to disregard 19th century understanding and learn
20th and 21st century understanding is probably an unproductive approach.

Regards, Ian.

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

All transmitters and receivers are connected with the mass.
S*


Mine aren't.

The way you talk about radio reminds me of a friend who used crystal sets
back in the 1920s. Fortunately, hew was able to learn modern radio theory
and practise.

A cristal sets has the modern name "rectenna":
"A simple rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode
connected across the dipole elements. The diode rectifies the AC current
induced in the antenna by the microwaves, to produce DC power, which powers
a load connected across the diode. Z: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna



I've a recollection that you've posted your views onto this newsgroup a
few weeks ago.
I guess that asking you to disregard 19th century understanding and learn
20th and 21st century understanding is probably an unproductive approach.

But I hope that you understand that 19th century physics and 21st century
are the same.
In the 20th the all was a top secret.
S*

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

"Ian" napisa? w wiadomo?ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
...

All transmitters and receivers are connected with the mass.
S*


Mine aren't.

The way you talk about radio reminds me of a friend who used crystal sets
back in the 1920s. Fortunately, hew was able to learn modern radio theory
and practise.

A cristal sets has the modern name "rectenna":
"A simple rectenna element consists of a dipole antenna with a diode
connected across the dipole elements. The diode rectifies the AC current
induced in the antenna by the microwaves, to produce DC power, which powers
a load connected across the diode. Z: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna

Yet more of your babbling nonsense.

Either you did not read the whole article, or more likely, you are incapable
of understanding what the article actually says.

You are a babbling fool.

"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
I've a recollection that you've posted your views onto this newsgroup a
few weeks ago.
I guess that asking you to disregard 19th century understanding and learn
20th and 21st century understanding is probably an unproductive approach.

But I hope that you understand that 19th century physics and 21st century
are the same.
In the 20th the all was a top secret.
S*

I don't recall us having nuclear bombs in the 19th century, nor transistors
nor integrated circuits. The underlying physics may not have changed but
man's understanding of it certainly has.
By analogy, the human body is still the same design as it was in the 15th /
16th /17th centuries (and earlier and later). If you need a doctor, will you
go to one practising 21st century medicine or 15th century medicine?
Would you prefer to drive a 21st century car or a 19th century car? Would
you be worried about dropping off the flat earth?
Perhaps you should study the "phlogiston" theory. How about the opposition
that Galileo encountered when he tried to support the theory of Copernicus
that Earth orbits around the Sun? If you'd been around in the time of
Galileo and Copernicus I guess you'd be certain that the Sun orbits the
Earth. After all, that's how Ptolemy said it was and that view lasted a
thousand years or more.

Regards, Ian.

"Ian" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
"Szczepan Bialek" wrote in message
.. .
I've a recollection that you've posted your views onto this newsgroup
a
few weeks ago.
I guess that asking you to disregard 19th century understanding and
learn 20th and 21st century understanding is probably an unproductive
approach.

But I hope that you understand that 19th century physics and 21st century
are the same.
In the 20th the all was a top secret.
S*

I don't recall us having nuclear bombs in the 19th century, nor
transistors nor integrated circuits.

All fundamentals were invented in XIX by Faraday, Stokes, Lorenz and Tesla.

The underlying physics may not have changed but man's understanding of it
certainly has.
By analogy, the human body is still the same design as it was in the 15th
/ 16th /17th centuries (and earlier and later). If you need a doctor, will
you go to one practising 21st century medicine or 15th century medicine?
Would you prefer to drive a 21st century car or a 19th century car? Would
you be worried about dropping off the flat earth?
Perhaps you should study the "phlogiston" theory. How about the opposition
that Galileo encountered when he tried to support the theory of Copernicus
that Earth orbits around the Sun? If you'd been around in the time of
Galileo and Copernicus I guess you'd be certain that the Sun orbits the
Earth. After all, that's how Ptolemy said it was and that view lasted a
thousand years or more.

Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy. All known that the planets orbit the Sun.
But the teaching program "said" the "the Sun orbits the Earth."

The same is now.
All physics people know that : "Light is the oscillatory flow of
electrons".
But in teaching program are mystery TEM waves.
S*

On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:21:22 +0200, "Szczepan Bialek"
wrote:

But I hope that you understand that 19th century physics and 21st century
are the same.
In the 20th the all was a top secret.

It wasn't called physics back then. It was "natural philosophy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Back then, to give one a "physic" was to administer a cathartic and
force regurgitation:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physic
That's fairly close to what I feel when reading your claims and
distortions.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff" napisal w wiadomosci
...

A cristal sets has the modern name "rectenna":

No it doesn't, a 'cristal' (sic) set, fails to meet the definition that is
in the first line of the article that you linked to: "A rectenna is a
rectifying antenna, a special type of antenna that is used to convert
microwave energy into direct current electricity"; in that a 'cristal'
(sic) set does not produce direct current; as it also states later in that
article: "it discards the DC component before sending the signal to the
earphones".

And what the electrons do in such instalation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ectricity.html
"
a.. It is very simple to light a building with power stolen from a nearby
radio transmitter as a farmer once proved with a barn.
b.. 1. Ensure that the building is isolated and near a powerful
transmitter
c.. 2. Fit it with a metal roof (corrugated iron works well)
d.. 3. Connect the lights between the roof and a good earth connection
e.. 4. Bask in the glow
There no the "crystal" or a diode.
What do you think. Will it be working with the diode between the light and
the roof ?

Where come from the electrons?
S*